Wisdom of the Sages, another look at what Yeshua was saying in Mathew 5:27-30

[Nikud]

Mitzvah 387

The prohibition to stray after one's thoughts or eyes

Matthew 5:27-30

27 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
28 But I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 If your right eye makes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom.
30 And if your right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom.

Numbers 15:39

39 It is to be a tzitzit for you to look at and thereby remember all of Adonai’s mitzvot and obey them, so that you won’t go around wherever your own heart and eyes lead you to prostitute yourselves;

"This mitzvah continues from the line of reasoning underlying the reason for wearing tzitzis. In the mitzvah 386, we are commanded to wear tzitzis so that when we see them, we will remember G-d’s commandments and do them, as opposed to straying after the desires of our hearts and eyes. “Do all of G-d’s commandments” is one of those general catch-all phrases that doesn’t count as a separate mitzvah but “Do not stray after the desires of your hearts and eyes” is a very specific prohibition.

Not pursuing the desires of our eyes is even more self-evident: it refers to giving in to all of our physical urges, especially those of a sexual nature. To reinforce this idea, the Talmud in Brachos (12b) cross-references our verse with Judges 14:3, in which Samson frames his desire for a particular woman in these terms. (It also cites Psalms 14:1 to support the use of hearts to express heretical thoughts.)

The reason for this mitzvah is obvious: if we give in to improper thoughts or urges, we will be led to sin. This mitzvah is the first line of defense to keep us from getting into even greater trouble.

Chinuch develops this theme further: Know, my son, the following principle, and let it be a regular refrain in your mouth (i.e. a lesson you will often cite) namely that which the Sages of blessed memory, stated (Avos 4:2) One sin begets another sin, and one mitzvah begets another mizvah. The phrase, "One sin begets another sin" means that if you set yourmins to satisfy your sinful craving once, you will be drawn to it many times. By contrast, if you merit to be "mighty in the land", suppressing your evil inclination and shutting your eyes from seeing evil even once, it will be easier for you to do so many times in the future. This is because desire draws the physical nature of a person in the same way that wine draws those who drink excessively drink it. For, as is well known, drunkards never feel satisfied with the wine they have drunk, rather, they constantly crave more of it with a great desire; and, in fact, to the degree that they habituate themselves to drinking it, their addiction actually intensifies. Now, if only they would resist their craving for wine once, and drink a cup of water instead, the burning fire of the craving for wine would abate, and [life] would become sweet to them. The same is true in regard to this matter of sinful cravings in general; Any person, if he accustoms himself to give in to his cravings and regularly indulges them, his evil inclination will intensify its hold over him day by day. He will helplessly succumb to his cravings every time, only to be revisited by further, more intense, cravings. This the meaning of the phrase in the Mishbah,"One sin begets another sin." By the contrast, if [The person] overcomes his impulses and refrains from indulging [his cravings], he will continually rejoice with his lot, all the time, because he will gave been freed from the Shackles of desire."

Isn't that what Yeshua was trying to do free us from our earthly desires? I stand with the beleif that Yeshua wasn't making a new commandment and changing the definition of Adultery.

 

[Mojo]

Isn't that what Yeshua was trying to do free us from our earthly desires? I stand with the beleif that Yeshua wasn't making a new commandment and changing the definition of Adultery.

I'll stand with you

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm afraid I have to take it at face value. He stated the original command and then He enlarged it. There was a higher standard when He stopped speaking than when He started. I don't think He changed the command though. He did bring it to it's fullness though. You could say He fulfilled it. He said He would do some of that.

 

[Nikud]

I'm afraid I have to take it at face value. He stated the original command and then He enlarged it. There was a higher standard when He stopped speaking than when He started. I don't think He changed the command though. He did bring it to it's fullness though. You could say He fulfilled it. He said He would do some of that.

If that is so and temptation is a sin.

Mark 1:13

13 He (Yeshua) was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by satan. And He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were taking care of Him.

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a kohen gadol (High Preist) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all the same ways—yet without sin.

Scripture then lies acording to the interpretation of He brought the law to the fullest (to mean temptation is a sin).

 

[The Revolting Man]

If that is so and temptation is a sin.

Mark 1:13

13 He (Yeshua) was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by satan. And He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were taking care of Him.

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a kohen gadol (High Preist) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all the same ways—yet without sin.

Scripture then lies acording to the interpretation of He brought the law to the fullest (to mean temptation is a sin).

I wouldn't say that temptation would rise to the level of what Christ is talking about here. Christ is referring to a mental willingness and desire to sin. That is a very different thing than temptation.

 

[Nikud]

Temptation is a desire to sin.

Cambridge definition of temptation.

temptation noun
US /tempˈteɪ·ʃən/
desire to have or do something, esp. something wrong, or something that causes this desire:

James 1:13-15

Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by G-d’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

Desire must be acted upon to give birth to sin. No action no conception of sin.

There was only immaculate conception and that brought life not death.

 

[IshChayil]

Mitzvah 387

The prohibition to stray after one's thoughts or eyes

Matthew 5:27-30

27 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
28 But I tell you that a man who even looks at a woman with the purpose of lusting after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 If your right eye makes you sin, gouge it out and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom.
30 And if your right hand makes you sin, cut it off and throw it away! Better that you should lose one part of you than have your whole body thrown into Gei-Hinnom.

Numbers 15:39

39 It is to be a tzitzit for you to look at and thereby remember all of Adonai’s mitzvot and obey them, so that you won’t go around wherever your own heart and eyes lead you to prostitute yourselves;

"This mitzvah continues from the line of reasoning underlying the reason for wearing tzitzis. In the mitzvah 386, we are commanded to wear tzitzis so that when we see them, we will remember G-d’s commandments and do them, as opposed to straying after the desires of our hearts and eyes. “Do all of G-d’s commandments” is one of those general catch-all phrases that doesn’t count as a separate mitzvah but “Do not stray after the desires of your hearts and eyes” is a very specific prohibition.

Not pursuing the desires of our eyes is even more self-evident: it refers to giving in to all of our physical urges, especially those of a sexual nature. To reinforce this idea, the Talmud in Brachos (12b) cross-references our verse with Judges 14:3, in which Samson frames his desire for a particular woman in these terms. (It also cites Psalms 14:1 to support the use of hearts to express heretical thoughts.)

The reason for this mitzvah is obvious: if we give in to improper thoughts or urges, we will be led to sin. This mitzvah is the first line of defense to keep us from getting into even greater trouble.

Chinuch develops this theme further: Know, my son, the following principle, and let it be a regular refrain in your mouth (i.e. a lesson you will often cite) namely that which the Sages of blessed memory, stated (Avos 4:2) One sin begets another sin, and one mitzvah begets another mizvah. The phrase, "One sin begets another sin" means that if you set yourmins to satisfy your sinful craving once, you will be drawn to it many times. By contrast, if you merit to be "mighty in the land", suppressing your evil inclination and shutting your eyes from seeing evil even once, it will be easier for you to do so many times in the future. This is because desire draws the physical nature of a person in the same way that wine draws those who drink excessively drink it. For, as is well known, drunkards never feel satisfied with the wine they have drunk, rather, they constantly crave more of it with a great desire; and, in fact, to the degree that they habituate themselves to drinking it, their addiction actually intensifies. Now, if only they would resist their craving for wine once, and drink a cup of water instead, the burning fire of the craving for wine would abate, and [life] would become sweet to them. The same is true in regard to this matter of sinful cravings in general; Any person, if he accustoms himself to give in to his cravings and regularly indulges them, his evil inclination will intensify its hold over him day by day. He will helplessly succumb to his cravings every time, only to be revisited by further, more intense, cravings. This the meaning of the phrase in the Mishbah,"One sin begets another sin." By the contrast, if [The person] overcomes his impulses and refrains from indulging [his cravings], he will continually rejoice with his lot, all the time, because he will gave been freed from the Shackles of desire."

Isn't that what Yeshua was trying to do free us from our earthly desires? I stand with the beleif that Yeshua wasn't making a new commandment and changing the definition of Adultery.

Very nice brother.
The last bit from pirkei avot reminds me of another saying of the sages (I can't remember where but I think it's also from Avot):

At first (when one gives in to the yeṣer haraʿ) it is called traveler,
then (the next time he sins) it is called guest,
then finally it is called "master".

 

[IshChayil]

I wouldn't say that temptation would rise to the level of what Christ is talking about here. Christ is referring to a mental willingness and desire to sin. That is a very different thing than temptation.

Christ? Who's that?
I thought this was the Messianic/Hebrew roots section I must be lost

(Just teasin' Zec)

 

[The Revolting Man]

But temptation can't be sin because Christ was tempted and is also sinless. So you can be tempted and not be sinning. It's when you give into the temptation, even mentally, that you're guilty of sin.

 

[Nikud]

How do you give in mentally to temptation when temptation is a mental thing. There's no physical temptation. Its in your head. Its when you act upon it that their is sin.

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a kohen gadol (High Preist) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all the same ways—yet without sin.

He was tempted in all the same ways as us and without sin so your right you can be tempted without sinning because temptation is not a sin.

We are tempted mentally, for example: lust, pride, greed, wrath all things were tempted with on a daily basis. Its when we act upon them that it becomes a sin. If not if you've ever been angry with someone your guilty of murder. See Matt. 5:21-22

Yes our sin begin with desires of the heart. That's why were told to change our hearts (circumcision of the heart) so we don't desire the things that lead us to sin and desperation from the Lord.

 

[The Revolting Man]

How do you give in mentally to temptation when temptation is a mental thing. There's no physical temptation. Its in your head. Its when you act upon it that their is sin.

Hebrews 4:15

15 For we do not have a kohen gadol (High Preist) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all the same ways—yet without sin.

He was tempted in all the same ways as us and without sin so your right you can be tempted without sinning because temptation is not a sin.

We are tempted mentally, for example: lust, pride, greed, wrath all things were tempted with on a daily basis. Its when we act upon them that it becomes a sin. If not if you've ever been angry with someone your guilty of murder. See Matt. 5:21-22

Yes our sin begin with desires of the heart. That's why were told to change our hearts (circumcision of the heart) so we don't desire the things that lead us to sin and desperation from the Lord.

So did Jesus sin then?

 

[Nikud]

No because he didn't physically act upon his temptation.

He was teaching us how to change our heart to protect ourselves from the desires that cause us to sin not that those desires, the temptation of anger and lust were sins.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The temptation or act of tempting isn’t a sin, its a crucible. The object of temptation can be a sin depending on how the one tempted responds to it. The temptation/crucible is the circumstances that we go through that tests us and purifies us by making us stronger.

Scripturally, when God tempts us it has a good outcome as the intent. When we tempt God, it typically has a bad connotation depending on our attitude and intent. Think Israelites in the wilderness vrs Gideon.

 

[The Revolting Man]

No because he didn't physically act upon his temptation.

He was teaching us how to change our heart to protect ourselves from the desires that cause us to sin not that those desires, the temptation of anger and lust were sins.

And this is what He was talking about in Matthew 5:27-30. There is a space between the temptation and the action that is a willingness to act, or even a determination to act if the opportunity presents itself. That began counting as sin after Matthew 5.

 

[Nikud]

If your saying that in these verses Yeshua is not warning about acting on temptation but saying that if your thinking about acting upon temptation (The definition of being tempted) is a sin you are arguing against Hebrews 4:15.
But let's role with your face value account of Yeshua expanding on sins and what we are supose to do and what's going to happen.
21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca’ [empty headed, stupid] shall be subject to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be subject to fiery Gehenna.
Have you ever been angry with someone. If so you have comited murder. Have ever lost your temper and called someone stupid or a fool, then your going to hell.
23 “Therefore if you are presenting your offering upon the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
Have you ever presented your offering upon the alter and remember that your brother has something against you, did you leave your offering there before the altar and to first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. What you've never presented an offering at the alter? He's expanding on a comand to make offerings. It can't be the spiritual kind, were taking it at face value.
25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent while you are with him on the way. Otherwise, your opponent may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the assistant, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Amen, I tell you, you will never get out of there until you have paid back the last penny!
Do you owe someone money?
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This is the point where most everyone who makes the face value expanded the law arguement for Mathew 5:27-28 explains that the the others where spiritual warnings about where those emotions can lead you and for some reason or another Matthew 5:27-28 is the only one you can take at face value. I'll add that if your going to make the arguement that he expanded the definition adultery to include thinking lustful about a woman you give validation to the modern church definition of Adultery because at face value it never says she was married and if the definition is being changed here's theperfect spot to do it. As a result you also validate the polygamy is a sin arguement because if you look at a single woman lustfuly (covetly is actually a better translation) your guilty of Adultery. Of course this happens only if you over look the context of who He was speaking to. Jews using a style of teaching as a Jewish Rabbi He did. To an audience who knew he was not adding to Torah. Thus not breaking the command of Duetornomy 4:2 which would have given them the ability to seize Him right there and giving us a completely different narative.

 

[Mojo]

Does the fact that Jesus uses "gune" (generally indicating married woman) play a part in this? Would it not be a pretty explicit reference to not covet your neighbors wife? A command has already broken inside your heart (coveting).

It's late here, and I'm a little groggy. Hope I make sense.

 

[Nikud]

It's also used go describe a widow Luke 4:26, and single Woman and married women together Mathew 14:21, Mattew 11:11 has to speak of all women to be true. In Romans 7:2 married women, Mathew 15:28 and John 2:4 when speaking to His mother [by this time it's only Mary mentioned in scripture no Joesph, it points to her bein a widower], John 4:21 and 19:26 also Yeshua speaking to Mary (widower), Galatians is talking about Mary who is betrothed to Joesph but not married. So the argument can be that I only one time gune was used did it was specifically meaning married woman, two other times married and single woman, 5 times a widowed woman, one time an unmarried virgin. Without context SUCH as knowing where the teaching is coming from or who it it directed at th a word gune a generic term for woman can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If your saying that in these verses Yeshua is not warning about acting on temptation but saying that if your thinking about acting upon temptation (The definition of being tempted) is a sin you are arguing against Hebrews 4:15.
But let's role with your face value account of Yeshua expanding on sins and what we are supose to do and what's going to happen.
21 “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever commits murder shall be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca’ [empty headed, stupid] shall be subject to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be subject to fiery Gehenna.
Have you ever been angry with someone. If so you have comited murder. Have ever lost your temper and called someone stupid or a fool, then your going to hell.
23 “Therefore if you are presenting your offering upon the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
Have you ever presented your offering upon the alter and remember that your brother has something against you, did you leave your offering there before the altar and to first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. What you've never presented an offering at the alter? He's expanding on a comand to make offerings. It can't be the spiritual kind, were taking it at face value.
25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent while you are with him on the way. Otherwise, your opponent may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the assistant, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Amen, I tell you, you will never get out of there until you have paid back the last penny!
Do you owe someone money?
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This is the point where most everyone who makes the face value expanded the law arguement for Mathew 5:27-28 explains that the the others where spiritual warnings about where those emotions can lead you and for some reason or another Matthew 5:27-28 is the only one you can take at face value. I'll add that if your going to make the arguement that he expanded the definition adultery to include thinking lustful about a woman you give validation to the modern church definition of Adultery because at face value it never says she was married and if the definition is being changed here's theperfect spot to do it. As a result you also validate the polygamy is a sin arguement because if you look at a single woman lustfuly (covetly is actually a better translation) your guilty of Adultery. Of course this happens only if you over look the context of who He was speaking to. Jews using a style of teaching as a Jewish Rabbi He did. To an audience who knew he was not adding to Torah. Thus not breaking the command of Duetornomy 4:2 which would have given them the ability to seize Him right there and giving us a completely different narative.

The answer to all of these questions (except for leaving my sacrifice on the altar) is yes. I am guilty of all of these sins and indeed have been condemned to death many times over. And I do take all of those examples literally, or at least at face value.

Matthew 5:27-30 can not be used to forbid polygamy because it is clearly speaking only of a married woman. It starts by referencing the sin of adultery, a clearly defined sin that involves a married woman. This would not apply to a non-married woman. Lust away. Also, the word woman here is in every instance I can find, always used to describe a married woman, at least when the woman's status can be ascertained from the text. I only have my poor scholarship backing that up though and I would retreat from it at the first serious looking assault on the idea.

Now I completely fail to see the Hebrews 4:15 connection. I clearly said that temptation itself is not a sin. We know that Christ was tempted and that He was without sin. I said that specifically. Maybe a better verse to look at this in light of is James 1:15, "The when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Maybe what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:27-28 is this point where lust conceiveth. Now you could say that conception would be the action itself, but that's not necessarily clear in the text. There is definitely room here for the conception to be internal. In fact I think that's almost inescapable taking both scriptures together.

I have to admit that I don't remember the entire line of this thread but I think part of the contention is centered around an idea that Jesus would not add to the Law. You mentioned Deuteronomy 4:2. But this is a command to us. It is directed to the Israelites. They (and by extension everyone) is not to add to the word which God commands us. You should note a few things though, the verse is not limited to the Words God spoke that day. It is a blanket statement that would apply to all the commands that God gives us. Also, Jesus is the Word. If He is speaking we are hearing the Word of God. And God gave many of His commands at different times. He started out with be fruitful and multiply and don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He gave more commands through Moses at Sinai but then added to those later through Moses when the Children of Israel were about to go in to the Promised Land. He definitely altered them with the coming of Christ; the Temple veil was torn, the sacrifices were done away with. The priesthood was done away with. This idea that the Law was set in stone at Sinai is simply not true. Okay, I mean it was literally true but not figuratively true. God would expand on it several times.

 

[Nikud]

It starts by referencing the sin of adultery, a clearly defined sin that involves a married woman

I know that, you know that, but you said the definition was expanded, "changed". Since gune dose not necessarily mean married women you validate the Mono only camps argument that Yeshua did change the definition of Adultery. That is their argument for the new adultry and forbidding polygamy and the come about it for the face value arguement. Now I don't beleive that and I know you dont beleive that but the arguement your presenting supports that.

Now I completely fail to see the Hebrews 4:15 connection. I clearly said that temptation itself is not a sin.

Yes you said temptation is not a sin, but what your saying it he willingness to commit sin, the thought of acting upon desire, is a sin and that is the defintion of being tempted. So on one hand your saying it's not a sin but then on the other hand giving the definition of tempted and saying it's a sin.

You mentioned Deuteronomy 4:2. But this is a command to us. It is directed to the Israelites.

First Yeshua was a Jew an Isralite. Second I'm not arguing if He had the right to change His own word or not right now, which is a mute point to argue with me because I dont beleive Yeshua changed His word. The High priest wanted Him dead. If He taught against Torah that would have given the high preist "justification" to arrest and kill Yeshua. If he expanded the word and change the definition of Adultery that would have given the high preist the "evidence" he needed and what plays out in the rest of scripture would not have happened. Yeshua would have been executed before passover. The fact that they understood the message He was giving was not changing the definition is the reason they weren't able to seize Him. He knew His audience. He was trying to save them. He was using the teaching techniques they were familiar with.

the Temple veil was torn, the sacrifices were done away with. The priesthood was done away with.

Yet there you have Yeshua in the middle of those scriptures your taking at face value teaching about when we sacrifice what is expected of us. It only makes sense when you look at it figuratively. So are you saying before that part of his teaching it was literal examples he switched to figurative language for that one example and went back to literal examples?

 

[The Revolting Man]

... you validate the Mono only camps argument that Yeshua did change the definition of Adultery. That is their argument for the new adultry and forbidding polygamy and the come about it for the face value arguement. Now I don't beleive that and I know you dont beleive that but the arguement your presenting supports that.

No it doesn't. The passage starts with adultery and ends with adultery. From start to finish it is about a married woman. Literally.

t your saying it he willingness to commit sin, the thought of acting upon desire, is a sin and that is the defintion of being tempted.

No it's not.

If he expanded the word and change the definition of Adultery that would have given the high preist the "evidence" he needed and what plays out in the rest of scripture would not have happened. Yeshua would have been executed before passover.

I think you're thinking too much like a modern day westerner with the advantage of hindsight. Jesus said, "You have heard...but I say..." I think His audience probably heard a teaching and not many of them realized the sea change that had just taken place. Also you are being highly speculative about the high priest. It's interesting brain candy but not the basis for a major theological stance. And Jesus wasn't teaching to any one audience in this passage and so He wasn't using a teaching technique that they would recognize and we would not. He was teaching to all of humanity so He was speaking plainly in a way that would echo down through the millenia.

your taking at face value teaching about when we sacrifice what is expected of us. It only makes sense when you look at it figuratively. So are you saying before that part of his teaching it was literal examples he switched to figurative language for that one example and went back to literal examples?

Before the sacrifices were done away with it was literal. After they were done away with it was figurative.